Main menu

Secondary menu

You are here

law

The media caravan has moved on from the Supreme Court, and attention is now focused back on Parliament. This piece picks out a handful of paragraphs from the High Court's judgment as referred to in my earlier article. These paragraphs might provide some enlightenment set against the political rhetoric that is now again in full flow.

My reading of the Supreme Court judgment is that the judgment does not contradict or qualify any of the statements in the paragraphs referred to below.

More popular media heat than light has been generated by the High Court's decision on 3rd November. This article attempts to report objectively and in plain terms what the Court said by way of key points. It does not take sides in the Brexit debate, nor comment on any political issues arising from the judgment.

Background

The case was heard in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, on 13th, 17th and 18th October.

They say that August is a dead month for news. Still, a few commercial and private client lawyers might have choked on their Bouillabaisse upon hearing of HMRC's announced consultation on a proposal for sanctions against those who "design, market or facilitate the use of tax avoidance arrangements which are defeated by HMRC".

In the Today Programme after the announcement, the focus was on financial advisers and on accountants as the lined up target "middlemen".

It’s been a bad time for Twitter abusers. First, in well-publicised news, 21 year old Swansea University student Liam Stacey lost his appeal against conviction for racially aggravated public disorder as a result of tweets he sent following Premier League footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsing on the football field with cardiac arrest.

Serving proceedings on another party can be tricky if you can’t track the person down. City law firm Stephenson Harwood has found a way round this. Why not use Facebook?

Acting for defendant TFS Derivatives in a claim from AKO Capital for alleged unpaid commissions, it secured permission from the High Court in London to serve notice on Fabio de Biase by Facebook message, to join Mr de Biase as a defendant in the proceedings.

“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately...Depart I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

These words are attributed to Oliver Cromwell for a speech that he made on 20 April 1653 to the Rump Parliament, but equally could symbolise the cry of the City of London Corporation before they trooped to the Court of Appeal to ask the Court to reject the appeal against eviction by the Occupy LSX Movement, who have been camped in the precincts of St Paul’s Cathedral since 15 October last year.